Objective/Subjective

[WAB]

Show me something you know about that was not something you experienced.

I mentioned World War I in a different thread.

I had no experience of it, yet I know it happened. That it happened is an objective fact, and it happened not only regardless of my experience but regardless of my existence.

Naturally, my knowledge of it is subjective, but the massive event that was WWI is objective fact.

I am not following your reasoning.

Are you saying a person cannot know about something unless they experienced it?

 

[untermensche]

Show me something you know about that was not something you experienced.

I mentioned World War I in a different thread.

I had no experience of it, yet I know it happened. That it happened is an objective fact, and it happened not only regardless of my experience but regardless of my existence.

Naturally, my knowledge of it is subjective, but the massive event that was WWI is objective fact.

I am not following your reasoning.

Are you saying a person cannot know about something unless they experienced it?

You have no first hand knowledge of WWI.

You didn't experience it.

You experienced reading about it or hearing some other person talking about it.

Every bit of knowledge you have of WWI was gained through some experience you had.

 

[WAB]

Show me something you know about that was not something you experienced.

I mentioned World War I in a different thread.

I had no experience of it, yet I know it happened. That it happened is an objective fact, and it happened not only regardless of my experience but regardless of my existence.

Naturally, my knowledge of it is subjective, but the massive event that was WWI is objective fact.

I am not following your reasoning.

Are you saying a person cannot know about something unless they experienced it?

You have no first hand knowledge of WWI.

You didn't experience it.

You experienced reading about it or hearing some other person talking about it.

Every bit of knowledge you have of WWI was gained through some experience you had.

Yes, obviously. I never said otherwise.

Nonetheless, that WWI happened is an objective fact, and would be had I never existed - ergo my experience of learning about it and of knowing about it are irrelevant to the fact that WWI happened.

What is it about what I am saying that you don't grasp?

Do YOU have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that the Sun exists?

Obviously, your experience of the Sun, including all you've learned about it, is personal and subjective - to you; but your experience of the Sun and everything you know about it is utterly irrelevant to the objective fact that the Sun exists.

 

[untermensche]

What you call objective facts are the things you have heard about that you believe really happened.

You have faith WWI happened.

You didn't experience one bit of it.

 

[WAB]

What you call objective facts are the things you have heard about that you believe really happened.

You have faith WWI happened.

You didn't experience one bit of it.

Yeah, I've repeatedly said I didn't experience one bit of it. In fact that is my point.

But that doesn't mean WWI did not factually, historically, objectively happen. If I believed that any and all things I had no experience of did not happen, and/or did not exist, then I would have to be insane.

But actually, I don't think I can continue this discussion with you, since you obviously do not understand it in the least.

 

[untermensche]

What you call objective facts are the things you have heard about that you believe really happened.

You have faith WWI happened.

You didn't experience one bit of it.

Yeah, I've repeatedly said I didn't experience one bit of it. In fact that is my point.

But that doesn't mean WWI did not factually, historically, objectively happen. If I believed that any and all things I had no experience of did not happen, and/or did not exist, then I would have to be insane.

But actually, I don't think I can continue this discussion with you, since you obviously do not understand it in the least.

Again.

What you label "factually, historically, objectively" is just what you believe based on your experiences.

You can't prove it.

 

[bilby]

What you call objective facts are the things you have heard about that you believe really happened.

You have faith WWI happened.

You didn't experience one bit of it.

Yeah, I've repeatedly said I didn't experience one bit of it. In fact that is my point.

But that doesn't mean WWI did not factually, historically, objectively happen. If I believed that any and all things I had no experience of did not happen, and/or did not exist, then I would have to be insane.

But actually, I don't think I can continue this discussion with you, since you obviously do not understand it in the least.

Again.

What you label "factually, historically, objectively" is just what you believe based on your experiences.

You can't prove it.

Nobody's saying that they can. They're just pointing out that your position is futile and valueless, so it doesn't matter one iota whether or not you are right, and any effort to prove or disprove your position is a pointless waste of time and effort, as is your position itself.

Congratulations, you have successfully proven that you have nothing interesting to say. I hope that makes you feel fantastic, but sadly, nobody except you can ever possibly know (or therefore truly care) whether it does or not.

Meanwhile, the rest of us would like to have a discussion without your constantly spamming it with valueless claims of its futility. We are specifically here to waste our time in ways we find amusing, and now that you've said your piece, it's not amusing anymore. So you can stop. Thanks.

 

[untermensche]

Again.

What you label "factually, historically, objectively" is just what you believe based on your experiences.

You can't prove it.

Nobody's saying that they can. They're just pointing out that your position is futile and valueless, so it doesn't matter one iota whether or not you are right, and any effort to prove or disprove your position is a pointless waste of time and effort, as is your position itself.

Congratulations, you have successfully proven that you have nothing interesting to say. I hope that makes you feel fantastic, but sadly, nobody except you can ever possibly know (or therefore truly care) whether it does or not.

Meanwhile, the rest of us would like to have a discussion without your constantly spamming it with valueless claims of its futility. We are specifically here to waste our time in ways we find amusing, and now that you've said your piece, it's not amusing anymore. So you can stop. Thanks.

My position is the absolute truth. Only philosophers care about such things.

Humans have their experiences of the external world and no other information about it.

Science is a reflection and abstraction of human experiences.

There are no magic fairies telling humans about the world. All they have are their experiences.

And what you think is interesting is meaningless hand waving. I hate to let you in on something but you are the only person in the universe that cares what you find interesting.

You just need to show something you know about that was not an experience you had.

 

[untermensche]

Since all we have are our subjective experiences of the world the term "objective" can only refer to a subset of experience.

Is color objective?

Do you experience the same color as I do? The exact same thing?

If not color is not objective in any way.

Objective: That subset of subjective experience that we can act upon to our perceived benefit. That which can be acted upon with utility to us. Food eaten that satiates and tastes good. A roof that protects from the experienced rain and the experienced unpleasantness of being wet. All labeled "objective".

And once we have labeled something "objective" we can place the concept on to other things similar to the things that have use to us. And even on to things that have no use to us.

We can say the distant galaxy is 'objective' based on the utility of our planet and sun and belief that distant planets and suns behave the same way.

We also label the parts of things that have use to us as objective.

So if the wooden spoon is made of matter then we label matter as "objective".

There is experience and what we make of it. We are totally isolated from anything besides experience.

There is nothing else.

When we no longer experience we no longer are.

Sorry.

 

[fromderinside]

SPAM.

Worse.

Rotten SPAM.

 

[skepticalbip]

Since all we have are our subjective experiences of the world the term "objective" can only refer to a subset of experience.

Is color objective?

Do you experience the same color as I do? The exact same thing?

If not color is not objective in any way.

Objective: That subset of subjective experience that we can act upon to our perceived benefit. That which can be acted upon with utility to us. Food eaten that satiates and tastes good. A roof that protects from the experienced rain and the experienced unpleasantness of being wet. All labeled "objective".

That is one of your many problems. You apparently have no idea what the word "objective" means. Reality is objective... how we experience it is subjective.

Color is an objective phenomena. How we experience it is subjective. EM at a wavelength of 700nM is red. How anyone experiences that wavelength is subjective. Someone with synaesthesia may experience it as a taste or an audible tone but it is still objectively electromagnetic radiation at a wavelength of 700nm. However, anyone who subjectively experiences it will identify it as red because it is EM radiation at 700nm.

An objective truth:
If you trip and fall into a pool of lava from the rim of an active volcano, you will die. Your subjective experience of the event is irrelevant.

 

[untermensche]

An objective truth:
If you trip and fall into a pool of lava from the rim of an active volcano, you will die. Your subjective experience of the event is irrelevant.

That is something you have faith in based on your experiences.

You have nothing but your subjective experiences.

"Objective" is just a subset of subjective experience.

The only question is: What features of subjective experience can be labeled "objective"?

Color is an objective phenomena. How we experience it is subjective. EM at a wavelength of 700nM is red.

This is total nonsense.

The stimulus is only associated with color. Color is a subjective experience. Energy is just the stimulus that causes the brain to reflexively create color. There is nothing about the energy that is "red". Some other evolved animal could turn the same energy into a sound, like some whales turn vibrating water into a visual experience or like bats that turn vibrating air into a visual experience.

There is no information about "red" in the energy.

Prove me wrong.

Show me the information about "red" in the energy. Show me something about the energy that would cause some alien that didn't have a brain that created "red' to know the energy was "red".

 

[skepticalbip]

Odd, but not surprising, that you fail to grasp the meaning of the word, "objective".

 

[untermensche]

Yes. Your daddy is bigger than my daddy.

Show me the information about "red" in energy.

 

[skepticalbip]

Show me the information about "red" in energy.

If you are ever able to comprehend the difference between subjective experiences and objective reality then you will realize that your sentence above is gibberish.

 

[fromderinside]

Untermensche look at your conversation with skepticalbip this way. He has more points than you with about a quarter of the the posts you've spewed. That result is subjective opinion objectively attributing more value in his input than they do in yours. You don't have to think about it. It's a fact.

 

[untermensche]

Show me the information about "red" in energy.

If you are ever able to comprehend the difference between subjective experiences and objective reality then you will realize that your sentence above is gibberish.

You are the clown that said "EM at a wavelength of 700nM is red."

That is total nonsense that you clearly can't defend in any way. It is experienced as "red" by humans. It is not red in any way.

Show me the "redness" in that energy.

You confuse what brains make out of the movement of nitrogen atoms caused by energy with some feature of the energy.

The visual spectrum is that tiny segment of the EM spectrum that causes cis retinal to transform to trans retinal.

That is all the energy does.

It has no information about "red".

But that is a common yet ignorant misunderstanding.

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche look at your conversation with skepticalbip this way. He has more points than you with about a quarter of the the posts you've spewed. That result is subjective opinion objectively attributing more value in his input than they do in yours. You don't have to think about it. It's a fact.

You are a cheerleader for ignorance.

Great.

 

[fromderinside]

Oh shit. You don't even know you are naked.

 

[untermensche]

Oh shit. You don't even know you are naked.

Meaningless gibberish from somebody that thinks energy is colored.

Yet can't show anything about the energy to demonstrate it is colored.